| |||||||||||||
Gentoo debates recruitment schemesGentoo debates recruitment schemesPosted Jul 23, 2012 15:41 UTC (Mon) by sumanah (guest, #59891)In reply to: Gentoo debates recruitment schemes by akeane Parent article: Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Disclaimer: I've never taken the Gentoo quizzes, and I'm talking more generally about the merits and disadvantages of bureaucratic processes. I guess fundamentally I find it difficult to believe a quiz is a better way to assess somebody, rather than previous interactions with maintainers say, or a community reputation - which can't be "faked" with l33t google skilz. One thing to consider: the merits of objective procedures. When a community says "here's the procedure for how to get such-and-such privileges," and they are clear and scalable and don't depend on forming relationships with specific people, then that community reassures its members that it's being transparent, objective, and fair in distributing those privileges. This reduces a risk of unfair discrimination based on prejudice, and makes the user interface of the community a lot clearer for newbies. Of course, the procedures themselves become a center of discussion around what actually constitutes merit and what skills should lead to which privileges, and that sort of discussion should be happening anyway. And sometimes communities struggle to consistently apply the rules, but at least they're talking about that instead of letting the issue simmer beneath the surface. Bureaucracies scale better than personal judgments, and can do better at fairness and accessibility. But they also put off some kinds of participants, and, if improperly administered, can cause inefficiencies and frustration. I applaud the Gentoo community for thinking and working on this from both approaches; I agree with Nathan Willis's summary: "the specifics of the training process are less important than the fact that is it deliberate and guided by active mentors and recruiters".
(Log in to post comments)
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Jul 24, 2012 18:49 UTC (Tue) by akeane (subscriber, #85436) [Link]
>One thing to consider: the merits of objective procedures. When a community says "here's the procedure for how to get such-and-such privileges," and they are clear and scalable and don't depend on forming relationships with specific people, then that community reassures its members that it's being transparent, objective, and fair in distributing those privileges. This reduces a risk of unfair discrimination based on prejudice, and makes the user interface of the community a lot clearer for newbies. Of course, the procedures themselves become a center of discussion around what actually constitutes merit and what skills should lead to which privileges, and that sort of discussion should be happening anyway. And sometimes communities struggle to consistently apply the rules, but at least they're talking about that instead of letting the issue simmer beneath the surface.
google: how do I get the procedure for how to get such-and-such privileges?
So, google in a clear and scalable, objective way answers that, how do you tell you tell it's not google doing that, guess it's the policy vs mechanism thing...
You may think these things need to be scalable, more bureaucratic, but I notice that there are many linux devices physically around me right now, like the embedded MIPS linux controller in my TV, or ARM linux in my wireless router, phone...
And this is something that got created without a huge bureaucracy, you can just turn up on lkml without a quiz and see how it goes.
At the end of the day, none of these distributions would exist without the kernel that somehow got produced (with it's millions of lines of code and thousands of contributors) without quizzes/HR stuff.
I guess, I am asking why not just adopt that model, as it obviously works, seems scalable, produced good stuff over the last two decades?
Or are the people who actually produce the stuff that the distros use/sell/possibly make money with, on a daily basis just a bunch of statistics to be processed/filtered according to, well, a bureaucratic process?
Play Knee Deep in zDoom :-) and stop trying to spell bureaucracy
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Jul 24, 2012 21:06 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
The kernel model is to have a Benevolent Dictator for Life at the top who can act however they want. You can show up on LKML and drop some patches and see if you get quizzed or not...Linux code review is famously harsh and sometimes the procedures to get changes accepted are arbitrary and inscrutable. You notice that vendors shipping a lot of linux derivatives but just because you shipped millions of units doesn't mean that your changes will get added to the Linus kernel on kernel.org, just ask the Android team about that. 8-)
Just because Linux development works doesn't mean that it is the best method or that it's methods are applicable to other organizations.
|
|||||||||||||